Can Pakistan Be Secular?

[mikkix]

@all Indians fellows and Pakistanis.
In islamic country bank can work as a moderator. there are certain rules in ISLAM BANKING such as In partnerships Islamic bank is a partner of any individual for e.g if i want to invest some money to some sectors and i need a loan from bank then I and bank invests together as a partner in the investment and share of profits distributes as per share of investment. Bank can also provide money to the people and for that he want a rent against that money,
Islamic Bank can also work as a agency for the investor means he(bank) invests money for the investor who wants to deposit their money in the bank and bank collects his rent against the duty he performed,,,there is a big difference between rent and interest...
Islamic banking is now studying and implementing in malaysia and soon it will be the modern way of Banking in the world...

 

[mikkix]

@Stumper
what Jinnah said in the speech since and after 1947 is not the issue.
I would like to tell you something to all pakistanis and all of you here, Islamic teachings is based on Quran and Sunnah, so our leader is Prophet Mohammad so we should follow what he said plz forget what Jinnah said about secularism and islam,,, The Jinnah debate about islam and secularism goes nowhere, whatever jinnah said. we knows... he is our leader and founder but pakistan should run according to the shariah and sayings of prophet....

---------- Post added at 03:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ----------

@Stumper
what Jinnah said in the speech since and after 1947 is not the issue.
I would like to tell you something to all pakistanis and all of you here, Islamic teachings is based on Quran and Sunnah, so our leader is Prophet Mohammad so we should follow what he said plz forget what Jinnah said about secularism and islam,,, The Jinnah debate about islam and secularism goes nowhere, whatever jinnah said. we knows... he is our leader and founder but pakistan should run according to the shariah and sayings of prophet....

 

[Solomon2]

No where in Muslim country any thing bad ever was done to minorities. and it will never be done.

I would like to know if any Pakistanis care to express their wholehearted agreement with asq's statement.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I would like to know if any Pakistanis care to express their wholehearted agreement with asq's statement.

Look whose talkin?
Israel allowed massacre of muslims remember?
illegal settlements?
occupation?
prevention of AID and food supplies?
Building an illegal wall?
Forcing Palastinians out of there houses coz they think jews lived here thousands of years back?
Etc etc.
Shame..........also id like if u dont visit Pakistan.

 

[Solomon2]

^^^^^^^
Translation: "I don't want to think about this, let's talk about something else."

Not on this thread. You know the rules: stick to the topic or don't answer. Does pushing the "Israel" button really relieve you of psychic pain in the long run?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

^^^^^^^
Translation: "I don't want to think about this, let's talk about something else."

Not on this thread. You know the rules: stick to the topic or don't answer. Does pushing the "Israel" button really relieve you of psychic pain in the long run?

I feel terrorists shouldnt give advise to others how they want to lead there life.
Looks like pushing Pakistan button makes u feel better?
I believe in long run .... terrorist nation in of middleast should be nuked.So tht we dont have problems in this region.
From sending F-16 against Pakistan in 98,supplying weapons to india,occupying holy lands of jerusalem
illegal settlements,killing innocents, stealing designs from france,nuclear prof....
And other terrorist activities in UAE,Pakistan and other countries.
Merchant of venice.
Talking about secularism doesnt suite people like u..So i advise u and indians to stay out of it..........U so called flag holders of secularism are well known......from killing 5000 muslims in gujrat.destroying ancient babri mosque.Prosecution of christians in Orissa.......t massacre of muslims in gaza and helping christians massacre muslims in gaza.....first muslim massacre in mid 19th century just after the formation of zionese terrorist state.

 

[Solomon2]

^^^^^
So pushing the Israel button does comfort you, especially when accompanied by fantasies of committing mass murder.

No where in Muslim country any thing bad ever was done to minorities. and it will never be done.

I would like to know if any Pakistanis care to express their wholehearted agreement with asq's statement.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

^^^^^
Go read WALLED by an israeli author it gives detail of ur B.S and terrorism by ur own man.
Also see sites by ex israeli soldiers who r confessing there crimes and telling ur pathetic lies.U terrorist.
Israeli became our enemy in 1998.....officialy by showing its cowardlyness and hatred against us.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.

 

[asq]

I would like to know if any Pakistanis care to express their wholehearted agreement with asq's statement.

Now solomon I like you to think fairly, since the birth of Pakistan how many riots against Minorities have taken place in Pakistan as compare to let us say our neighbourly country India.

U do the math and than see the facts, solomon.

Let me repeat here according to our Holy book, we consider Jews and Christians as our brothers of the book.

Now the book talmud was changed arround 2 to 3 hundred years ago and has been used instead of Holy Torah, the changes were made by jewish elders for preservastion of thier folks and not true word of God, than my friend they have not followed the true Religion of Moses. P.B.U.H. Read and be enlightened.

About True Torah Jews Against Zionism

Now if u really are intersted to know thew truth, read following and this info will set the record straight.

Islam and Muslims: The Message of the Prophet's Seerat

Fact remains we the Muslims helped Jews throughout the history and they flourished tremondously under Muslim rule, but if they decide to leave Arab countries on their own to go to Israel, than u should at least have lttle fairness in u to see and say the truth.

 

[bc040400065]

Jinnah was fine with the Cabinet mission plan, so that tells you that he actually preferred a solution where muslim majority states could exist within secular India, just with a little more flexibility. Jinnah did not want the imposition of sharia in Pakistan. .

yes jinnah never wanted to impose Sharia law but he never wanted to remain in secular india...
and one off topic post about cabinet mission plan.....

why Quaid accepted cabinet mission plan ...
cabinet mission plan was about dividing india into 3 groups..
group 1 comprising muslims majority 4 current provinces of pakistan with whole of undivided punjab.
group 2 comprising hindu majority provinces
group 3 comprising undivided bengal and Asam.
so what Quaid thought was that we accept cabinet mission plan and we get 2 federations of muslim majority provinces and Punjab and bengal would also be undivided. and also there was a provision in the cabinet mission plan that any group or 2 groups can decide to get seperate from the Indian Union after 10 years and make a free federation of their own. and also the princely states were to join any one group of their choice depending on their majority population and geoghaphic locations. now that was the idea behind accepting this plan... Quaid thought that we will get whole of punjab and bengal and Asam too and other princely states like kashmir, bahawalpor, Qalat, Khairpur and we will get pakistan as well not now but after 10 years.

 

[TechLahore]

it was not merely quaid e azam who who wantd this or that, he was not a dictator, he was a chosen leader of the muslims, a political representative of all the muslims in india, quaid e azam just wanted the muslims to practice their religion and make their laws irrespective of any ideals and anything, some western warriors in our country justify the quaid e azam being secular by saying that he wanted the minorities to feel free to practice their religion, where as no muslim can deny the fact that in islam, minorities are treated as equals and fairly, the condition which muslims faced that time was a clear discrimination of hindu leaders against muslims, thus quaid guarenteed minorities, their wellness in this country so that they dont feel insecure(hindus being majority among minorities). muslims were naturally angered with what happened to them during the creation so he wanted to create a harmonious situation in the country, so the muslims dont fight the non muslims.

some people find similarities between kemal and quaid e azam, well its actually quite surprising, quaid if he admired kemalism, why he didnt turned urdu script into roman script, banned azan from mosques, prompted women to wear bikinis and western dresses, why he didnt chose to be a dectator rather being the chosen leader of sub continet muslims and the head of the party.

he wished liaquat ali khan to become the leader of the nation, and you can find quotes from him in which he declines any western system to be imposed in the country and appreciates an islamic system to be used in the country.

You start off by saying it is not about what Quaid-e-Azam wanted, and you end your argument by telling us what Quaid-e-Azam wanted. Very interesting.

Bottom line: Pakistan was created as a state within which Muslims were free to fully practice their religion. It is/was not to be a state that impinges on the rights of other religions, nor was it meant to be a theocracy, nor was there to be any official role for religious leaders/figures in the government of Pakistan and nor was there absolutely any intention on the part of the Quaid to implement the kinds of laws Zia did, for instance. The leader of Pakistan was not to be an "Emir ul momineen" and nor was he to be any sort of "Khalifa". He was just the President of Pakistan (originally the Governor General, but that changed soon enough).

And if you are questioning the Quaid's secular credentials, well then, that's a new one!!

 

[TechLahore]

yes jinnah never wanted to impose Sharia law but he never wanted to remain in secular india...
and one off topic post about cabinet mission plan.....

Part of your post involves mind-reading a long dead individual. I can't help you in that department.

As for the part above, I appreciate your agreement viz the fact that Jinnah did not desire Sharia law for Pakistan. However, you miss the point re the secular India argument. My point was that Jinnah fought for Pakistan precisely because he did not trust Gandhi to keep India secular. That is why I brought up the compulsory sanskrit example. If Gandhi had not indulged in communalism and had not "hinduized" India's freedom movement, perhaps the end result would have been something drastically different.

If you have not yet read Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah and partition, I would highly recommend it.

 

[RobbieS]

We have basically distorted history so completely that we now have ourselves forgotten what our genesis was...

Jinnah was fine with the Cabinet mission plan, so that tells you that he actually preferred a solution where muslim majority states could exist within secular India, just with a little more flexibility. Jinnah did not want the imposition of sharia in Pakistan. Quite the contrary, in fact, he pushed for the creation of Pakistan because Gandhi was arguing for Sanskrit to be taught in all schools on a mandatory basis, and for Hinduism/communalism making its way into the government and society of post-partition India.

Quaid-e-Azam did not want a situation whereby Muslims, as a minority, would have to live in a Hindu country. He asked Gandhi to shed communalism... over and over... and it didn't work. So Pakistan was created as a country where Muslims and followers of other religions could exercise their religion freely without fear of interference from the state. Not a state where sharia would be imposed on all.

I have to say I didn't expect this from you TL. You are trying to present a distorted version of history. Painting Gandhi as communal? The man who went on fast to deter rioteers?

I respect Jinnah and his vision for Pakistan but dont try and paint him as the saviour of all minorities of the sub-continent. Your comments seem like conveying the notion that all minorities were being persecuted by Hindus. Jinnah wanted a separate state for the Muslims and thats it. His attempts at saving all minorities by asking them to join Pakistan are just a hogwash to prevent people from labeling him a communal politician which to an extent he was.

And this is where Jinnah's vision for a pseudo-secular vision for Pakistan was inherently flawed. A country formed on the basis of religion can hardly avoid the problems that Pakistan is facing today. Those that are born out of mixing religion with politics. In hindsight, it does seem like his vision for Pakistan, evident from his speech was pretty unrealistic.

And please post sources that prove that Gandhi was the communal and MA Jinnah the torch bearer of minority rights.

 

[Awesome]

I sincerely hope Pakistan is NEVER secular LIKE INDIA. Anyway that's another debate.

Pakistan for the most part is a secular country. The problem of bringing in full on secularism is mostly part of passing legislation, which is extremely hard in Pakistan as there rarely is a full majority party. Never in its history have pro-theocracy parties ever taken power. The people never vote for religious parties.

Most of the bugs in the constitution are there since its inception. Ahmedi law, Blasphemy law, then Hudood Ordinance.

Most constitutional amendments come on for more pressing concerns. Doctrine of necessity, Article 58-2b, electorate system, blah blah blah.

I'm sure if more and more Pakistan actually sat down to debate secularism, the nutjobs who equate secularism with being anti-religion will take a back seat. Freedom to profess religion would only increase through secularism. If our Muslims are true Muslims they have nothing to worry about. The doh numbri Muslims would automatically go on and do their own thing.

 

[TechLahore]

Sorry to interrupt however bolded part was interesting...So what are your thoughts on secularism in India??? Was Jinnah wrong in his interpertations of Gandhi's secularism??? In other words is India secular or Jinnah's fear was nothing but figment of his imagination???

No, Jinnah was absolutely correct. I think Gandhi paid for his mistake... he was the one who introduced communalism into independence politics, and then after partition realized his mistake. He took a more moderate view for which he was killed. This proves that communalization had done the damage... the hardliners were willing to kill Gandhi himself.

If you had 500M muslims in a United India we very possibly could have been at daggers drawn because both sides would see the other as a bigger threat, and each side would be strong enough to really wage an unending campaign against the other.

Gandhi was communal..wow!!!...Look at the irony the same man was killed by so called hindu's who think he was favouring Muslims and other side accusing him about exactly opposite... Whatever we Indian's or Pakistani think about Mahatma however the world see's him like this...

See above.

As for how the world sees him, I don't wish to comment on that. I think there is a simplistic view which is propagated, and a more nuanced view that people who have actually studied history hold. I don't care for uninformed views, even if they are popular.

It is a good book...However views that converge with mine are not necessarily true...Having said it i must say its unfortunate that history was distorted by so called self-righteous people on both sides of the border with a sheer motive of daemonizing people from other side and we were never told the truth...

History has certainly been distorted. In my view the most unfortunate turning point in the independence politics of United India was when Gen. Smuts met with Mr. Gandhi in South Africa and obliquely told him that while his South African campaign would not succeed, it would be better if he returned to India to play politics there... the rest is history.

The fact that Gandhi mixed extreme Hinduism to such a degree, with satyaghira and Lord knows what else, clearly pushed the muslims away. He was asked by Jinnah to either not Hinduize the independence movement, or not claim leadership of all Indian citizens. He refused both. Here is an extract from the book by Arthur Herman (Gandhi & Churchill: the epic rivalry that destroyed an empire and forged our age), from page 404:


"But by insisting that the Congress he had created was the sole voice for all Indians, and by embracing his role as a Hindu religous figure as well as political sage, Gandhi was alienating Jinnah and other Muslim nationalists even as the goal they had worked for together since 1916 drew near."